Log In | Register
36 Comments
PrintMOUNTAIN OF DEBT: Rising debt may be next crisis
Fri Jul 3, 2009 11:20 AM EDT
Images 
(showing 1 of 2 photos)
(showing 1 of 2 photos)advertisement
WASHINGTON — The Founding Fathers left one legacy not celebrated on Independence Day but which affects us all. It's the national debt.
The country first got into debt to help pay for the Revolutionary War. Growing ever since, the debt stands today at a staggering $11.4 trillion — equivalent to about $37,000 for each and every American. And it's expanding by over $1 trillion a year.
The mountain of debt easily could become the next full-fledged economic crisis without firm action from Washington, economists of all stripes warn.
"Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently told Congress.
Higher taxes, or reduced federal benefits and services — or a combination of both — may be the inevitable consequences.
The debt is complicating efforts by President Barack Obama and Congress to cope with the worst recession in decades as stimulus and bailout spending combine with lower tax revenues to widen the gap.
Interest payments on the debt alone cost $452 billion last year — the largest federal spending category after Medicare-Medicaid, Social Security and defense. It's quickly crowding out all other government spending. And the Treasury is finding it harder to find new lenders.
The United States went into the red the first time in 1790 when it assumed $75 million in the war debts of the Continental Congress.
Alexander Hamilton, the first treasury secretary, said, "A national debt, if not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."
Some blessing.
Since then, the nation has only been free of debt once, in 1834-1835.
The national debt has expanded during times of war and usually contracted in times of peace, while staying on a generally upward trajectory. Over the past several decades, it has climbed sharply — except for a respite from 1998 to 2000, when there were annual budget surpluses, reflecting in large part what turned out to be an overheated economy.
The debt soared with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and economic stimulus spending under President George W. Bush and now Obama.
The odometer-style "debt clock" near Times Square — put in place in 1989 when the debt was a mere $2.7 trillion — ran out of numbers and had to be shut down when the debt surged past $10 trillion in 2008.
The clock has since been refurbished so higher numbers fit. There are several debt clocks on Web sites maintained by public interest groups that let you watch hundreds, thousands, millions zip by in a matter of seconds.
The debt gap is "something that keeps me awake at night," Obama says.
He pledged to cut the budget "deficit" roughly in half by the end of his first term. But "deficit" just means the difference between government receipts and spending in a single budget year.
This year's deficit is now estimated at about $1.85 trillion.
Deficits don't reflect holdover indebtedness from previous years. Some spending items — such as emergency appropriations bills and receipts in the Social Security program — aren't included, either, although they are part of the national debt.
The national debt is a broader, and more telling, way to look at the government's balance sheets than glancing at deficits.
According to the Treasury Department, which updates the number "to the penny" every few days, the national debt was $11,518,472,742,288 on Wednesday.
The overall debt is now slightly over 80 percent of the annual output of the entire U.S. economy, as measured by the gross domestic product.
By historical standards, it's not proportionately as high as during World War II, when it briefly rose to 120 percent of GDP. But it's still a huge liability.
Also, the United States is not the only nation struggling under a huge national debt. Among major countries, Japan, Italy, India, France, Germany and Canada have comparable debts as percentages of their GDPs.
Where does the government borrow all this money from?
The debt is largely financed by the sale of Treasury bonds and bills. Even today, amid global economic turmoil, those still are seen as one of the world's safest investments.
That's one of the rare upsides of U.S. government borrowing.
Treasury securities are suitable for individual investors and popular with other countries, especially China, Japan and the Persian Gulf oil exporters, the three top foreign holders of U.S. debt.
But as the U.S. spends trillions to stabilize the recession-wracked economy, helping to force down the value of the dollar, the securities become less attractive as investments. Some major foreign lenders are already paring back on their purchases of U.S. bonds and other securities.
And if major holders of U.S. debt were to flee, it would send shock waves through the global economy — and sharply force up U.S. interest rates.
As time goes by, demographics suggest things will get worse before they get better, even after the recession ends, as more baby boomers retire and begin collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits.
While the president remains personally popular, polls show there is rising public concern over his handling of the economy and the government's mushrooming debt — and what it might mean for future generations.
If things can't be turned around, including establishing a more efficient health care system, "We are on an utterly unsustainable fiscal course," said the White House budget director, Peter Orszag.
Some budget-restraint activists claim even the debt understates the nation's true liabilities.
The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, established by a former commerce secretary and investment banker, argues that the $11.4 trillion debt figures does not take into account roughly $45 trillion in unlisted liabilities and unfunded retirement and health care commitments.
That would put the nation's full obligations at $56 trillion, or roughly $184,000 per American, according to this calculation.
___
On the Net:
Treasury Department "to the penny" national debt breakdown: http://tinyurl.com/yrxrsh
Peter G. Peterson Foundation independent assessment of the national debt: http://www.pgpf.org/
"Deficits do Matter" debt clock: http://tinyurl.com/l6mvjb
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
13 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Tom Raum's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: ObamaVine
- Regions: Iraq , Italy , Japan , United States , India , Germany , Afghanistan , Canada , China , France , Washington DC
- Public Discussion (36)
- ObamaVine
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
16
6.1
3.9
{"commentId":8005572,"authorDomain":"publius-1776"}
Alexander Hamilton is hardly representative of what our founding fathers believe about a national debt. They believed that passing debt on from one generation to the next was immoral. Jefferson put it best:
"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
The $11 trillion debt, by iteself, IS generational debt; not to mention the $56 trillion in unfunded futrure guarantees.
Our founding fathers did NOT pass this debt on to us. In fact, they were opposed to any National Bank that would enable the Federal Government to take on this debt. Although you mentioned that the last time we paid our National debt down to $0 in 1834-1835, you failed to mention that was the same year that President Andrew Jackson smashed the Second National Bank (predecessor to what we call the "Fed" today). Jefferson and Madison were also against a National Bank and they did their part to destroy the First Bank of the United States.
Since 1913, we have had the Third National Bank and we have all but forgotten the important lessons the most noble generation of the United States. If we don't look at what the Fed does and how it enables Congress to borrow and spend our currency into ruin, we are all doomed to follow other historical periods; eg. Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, Argentina and Pre-Revolutionary France. None of these lessons from the history books turned out well for the average persons living on those countries.
{"commentId":8005572,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"publius-1776"}
#1 - Fri Jul 3, 2009 12:55 PM EDT{"commentId":8005709,"authorDomain":"D-A-N"}
Don't get in a tizzy. Over the 30 years of Reaganism, the national debt was a problem. It was deliberately exacerbated by reckless Republican policies aimed at keeping taxes on the obscenely rich richer. For 30 years, rational people said the day would come when we would need that debt for serious purposes. Today is the day we need that debt for serious purposes. We need to accept it for what it is, the only way out of the trouble we are in. Belt tightening is *not* a meaningful solution. If we need more revenue, look to the folks who got the bonus income over the last 30 years.
{"commentId":8005709,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"D-A-N"}
- 4 votes
#2 - Fri Jul 3, 2009 1:05 PM EDT{"commentId":8005772,"authorDomain":"D-A-N"}
oops, I meant, keeping taxes on the obsenely rich low....
{"commentId":8005772,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"D-A-N"}
{"commentId":8005978,"authorDomain":"slewis999"}
Dan, you lost all credibility because of a few of your statements.
1) 30 years of Reaganims. Congress was controlled by Dems from 81-94 and from 2004-current. So where is the 30 years from?
2) You seem to think Republicans are the sole reason we are in this mess. Yet in the past 30 years the dems controlled congress more than Republicans.
3) Belt tightening is *not* a meaningful solution. What planet are you living on? The Economy is slowing, very slowing getting back on its feet without much of the so called stimulus actually being spent. What do you think will happen when it is spend after the economy is moving forward?
What we don't need is another artificial bubble. Which is exactly what this administration and Congress are trying to do with their needless overspending.
I will say it again, like so many others have, YOU DON'T GET OVER A SPENDING HANGOVER BY SPENDING MORE.
{"commentId":8005978,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"slewis999"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":8007326,"authorDomain":"D-A-N"}
1. Reaganism is not Republicanism and the Democrats in office are easily scared by the same scare tactics used to bully them into the Iraq war.
2. The only place we spend excessively is in the military budget, how much are you proposing to cut?
3. The proven nature of an econmic collapse is insufficient demand brought about by insufficient credit. The only player big enough to correct this problem is the government. The problem right now is that the cowards are refusing to spend enough.
4. "Spending hangover" is a meaningless buzzword created to confuse you. Apparently you are easily confused.
{"commentId":8007326,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"D-A-N"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":8007972,"authorDomain":"kissmyarsenal"}
3. The proven nature of an econmic collapse is insufficient demand brought about by insufficient credit. The only player big enough to correct this problem is the government. The problem right now is that the cowards are refusing to spend enough.
What has been proven and what you are living now is that government taking excessively from the private sector decreases demand, decreases consumer confidence, ruins the motivation to produce, and ruins the motivation to risk capital. Liberals just flunk the lessons of life, every time.
And regardless of where the economy goes, I don't want to steal from my or your children and grandchildren so we can live a little better ourselves at their expense. More government spending and more government taking is immoral.
{"commentId":8007972,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"kissmyarsenal"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":8010860,"authorDomain":"eric24"}
Thanks Obama for increasing it by Trillions since being in office. /sarc off
{"commentId":8010860,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"eric24"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":8016045,"authorDomain":"hmm"}
What has been proven and what you are living now is that government taking excessively from the private sector decreases demand, decreases consumer confidence, ruins the motivation to produce, and ruins the motivation to risk capital.
What crap this is kissmyaresenal.
What we are living now is the result of greedy capitalists who were allowed to freely fleece America because the Republicans foolishly believe that business will regulate itself.
Until the conservatives give up the absurd notion that the "free market" (which has NEVER been free) is the answer when clearly it is not, there is absolutely NO reason to listen to them.
The government has not excessively taken from anyone....corporate fascists have taken excessively from everyone.
That's how people like Henry Ford became successful. He didn't take every last dime for himself and his buddies on the board. He raised his employees pay and created a market for his cars.
{"commentId":8016045,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"hmm"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":8017125,"authorDomain":"lampell"}
That's how people like Henry Ford became successful. He didn't take every last dime for himself and his buddies on the board. He raised his employees pay and created a market for his cars.
Ford failed the first two times when he had backers. The third time was the charm, of course it helped that he didnt have to pay income tax:) He gave his workers good pay to avoid having the union in his shop. Nowadays he would have been better off being a Japanese manufacturer so he could be subsidized by building a plant down South, hiring non union workers and getting the state to build his factory for him.
Having been in finance for 30 years I have to ask, what exactly is a corporate fascist in this country?
I think I responded in another thread re the role of Fannie Mae and government policy vis. those institutions and the Glass Steagal Act repealed in 1999 so I wont repeat it here.
{"commentId":8017125,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"lampell"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":8020782,"authorDomain":"kissmyarsenal"}
Chuck, your government and business models are in play in stagnant Europe, with >15% unemployment and bankrupt governments.
The government loves rich people even while demonizing them. The rich foot the bill for all the ridiculous government giveaways.
{"commentId":8020782,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"kissmyarsenal"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":8021117,"authorDomain":"mwestenfelder"}
Chuck, your government and business models are in play in stagnant Europe, with >15% unemployment and bankrupt governments.
Last time I looked EU unemplyment rates were lower than American unemployment rates and governments had smaller deficits.
Maybe time for a realitycheck, arsenal?
{"commentId":8021117,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"mwestenfelder"}
{"commentId":8034425,"authorDomain":"kissmyarsenal"}
Try looking at the individual countries, like the 18% in Spain, and the unemployment also rising in all but maybe one. We just recently passed a few, due to Obama policies. If you admire Europe, go there.
The European countries are broke, and that is with the US footing their defense bills.
{"commentId":8034425,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"kissmyarsenal"}
{"commentId":8005710,"authorDomain":"publius-1776"}
Alexander Hamilton is hardly representative of what our founding fathers believe about a national debt. They believed that passing debt on from one generation to the next was immoral. Jefferson put it best:
"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
The $11 trillion debt, by iteself, IS generational debt; not to mention the $56 trillion in unfunded futrure guarantees.
Our founding fathers did NOT pass this debt on to us. In fact, they were opposed to any National Bank that would enable the Federal Government to take on this debt. Although you mentioned that the last time we paid our National debt down to $0 in 1834-1835, you failed to mention that was the same year that President Andrew Jackson smashed the Second National Bank (predecessor to what we call the "Fed" today). Jefferson and Madison were also against a National Bank and they did their part to destroy the First Bank of the United States.
Since 1913, we have had the Third National Bank and we have all but forgotten the important lessons the most noble generation of the United States. If we don't look at what the Fed does and how it enables Congress to borrow and spend our currency into ruin, we are all doomed to follow other historical periods; eg. Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, Argentina and Pre-Revolutionary France. None of these lessons from the history books turned out well for the average persons living on those countries.
{"commentId":8005710,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"publius-1776"}
- 5 votes
#3 - Fri Jul 3, 2009 1:05 PM EDT{"commentId":8029808,"authorDomain":"atthebeachinsd"}
Keep educating people. It is the only way the Fed will be exposed for what they are. Right now people have little understanding of the Fed and how central banking works. If people took the time to read "A History of Money and Banking in the U.S." by Murray Rothbard they'll finally get some clarity as to who is ultimately responsible for our current depression. Yes I said depression, we are only at year 1930 on the great depression time scale, the initial bounce after a stock market crash where people start seeing green shoots. We all know how that panned out.
Trivia question: When the financial capital of the world moved from London to New York, were the Brits a creditor nation or a debtor nation?
{"commentId":8029808,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"atthebeachinsd"}
{"commentId":8032261,"authorDomain":"lampell"}
Trivia question: When the financial capital of the world moved from London to New York, were the Brits a creditor nation or a debtor nation
LOL what makes you think that NY is still the financial capital of the world?:)
{"commentId":8032261,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"lampell"}
{"commentId":8039809,"authorDomain":"atthebeachinsd"}
Oh by all means NY is NOT the financial capital of the world anymore....don't tell the press though, they are still seeing green shoots. The new center is emerging in a very large country that happens to be a world creditor and net savings country....
{"commentId":8039809,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"atthebeachinsd"}
{"commentId":8041801,"authorDomain":"lampell"}
Oh by all means NY is NOT the financial capital of the world anymore....don't tell the press though, they are still seeing green shoots. The new center is emerging in a very large country that happens to be a world creditor and net savings country....
Yes I know which one you are talking about. Throughout history being the financial center of the world aint all it is cracked up to be. The U.K. has become a nation of paper pushers and the U.S. is possibly following in their footsteps
{"commentId":8041801,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"lampell"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":8006280,"authorDomain":"mardigras306"}
Reduce spending now.. Bring home the troops and have them transition into rebuilding the infrastructure of this country and get the small business incubators back... and get financial regulation and anti-trust laws enforced in this country. Do not let the wolves guard the hen house any longer. We got over this debacle before with the saving and loan crisis...the question is did anyone learn anything from the last time? Its going to be difficult this time from the early 1980's because we are in two wars now and the tax system has decimated the middle class so the come back will be longer and harder because you have to rebuild the middle class folks. You need a third party so that these politicans and so-called "regulators" on both sides do not get into bed with wallstreet, big business and "too big to fail banks". You have a growing population of people in this country that have been in a recession for years even before this "false economy" and this "false recession" occured. The greatest transfer of wealth has been orchestrated by Bush/Cheney... they started the wars, they let the financial regulators look the other way... they created this illusion of a "booming" economy when in fact it was never there in the first place.
{"commentId":8006280,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"mardigras306"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Fri Jul 3, 2009 1:53 PM EDT{"commentId":8007178,"authorDomain":"ural"}
All true...
{"commentId":8007178,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"ural"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":8013560,"authorDomain":"lampell"}
". You have a growing population of people in this country that have been in a recession for years even before this "false economy" and this "false recession" occured.
Ok I will bite, Ive been in finance for 30 years, what exactly is a false economy and a false recession. How do you measure these things? The stock market, one measure of the economy went up from 2001 to 2007, house prices went up from 2001 to 2007 and are now back to where they were in 2003. Unemployment until 2008 was low, people were working, spending their home equity lines on cars, and TVs, bought houses with no money down, thinking they could refinance or flip it for a profit. House prices went up 10 pct per annum and normally they go up 3 pct. If someone didnt see a collapse, whose fault is that.
Lets talk about the famous deregulation, and no regulation. Many people ( not me) consider the repeal of the 1930s act Glass Steagall to be the defining moment in derugulation. Unfortanately it was repealed in 1999. I for one am not blaming Clinton, but just to point out that the nasty Republicans didnt do it. Odds are no one will read this post, but lets back up a bit here vis the "false" economy, whatever that is.
It has been government policy, both from Democrats and Republicans to encourage home ownership period, its a win win for both. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were set up in the thirties as government owned institutions to supply money to create liquidity in the housing sector. That is government policy, for the express purpose of making houses more available and to keep rates down. Many years later, the two agencies were "privatized" in the 70s so that political influence would be absent from their decisions. (That worked out well didnt it?:) Without those 2 institutions buying or guaranteeing HALF of all mortgages in the country there would have been no way for the banks to have gone on a lending spree as they did, regulated or not. So the prime pump were these two institutions. Next we add some further ingredients, securitiztion of mortgages, packaging them into what looked like safe loans. Now banks could sell these packages to more investors when Fannie and Freddie got indigestion. Why would a bank care what the quality of the loan was if they could issue it, make a profit, and sell it to either Fannie or institutioanal investors like hedge funds, pension funds, foreign governments. Now we get to the never regulated instititions, hedge funds, private equity funds that act as shadow banks and actually have more firepower than the traditional banks. They are not really regulated, and if Congress wanted to, they could have, including the Democrats from 2006 onwards. While that was going on, a relatively new produtc, the credit default swap was introduced acting like traditional insurance, allowing even more people to buy junk loans because you could insure against declines in their value. Not regulated, but only became big around 2006, with Democrats in control. I am not blaming Democrats or Republicans they all wanted the housing market to keep on truckin. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got indigestion, it was "discovered" that their capital ratios were alarmingly low, but because they had the implied backing of the U.S. they were allowed to keep lending, to keep the pump going. And when they ultimately lost a bundle politicians from both aisles were "shocked" at the losses. So after taking them back over again and giving them 200 billion dollars of your money, did the new administration tell them to change their standards.? Nope, they were told to further lower there standards and buy up or guarantee loans from people who were already underwater to prevent foreclosures ( that worked out well too:)
No politician could have seen the consequences of encouraging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do all this lending since they could not have understood the complexities of securitized loans and CDO's. State pension funds bought into it, foreign banks bought into it, credit agencies for huge fees labeled them AAA and so and so on.
What if a politician saw all this in 2006 and stepped in front of the freight train and said STOP there will be a crash? He would have been blamed for the collapse himself. One politician who I dont normally agree with, Ron Paul, spoke on the floor of the House Banking committee in 2003 and warned of this, the committee, both Republicans and Democrats laughed him off the floor.
{"commentId":8013560,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"lampell"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":8016115,"authorDomain":"hmm"}
. Why would a bank care what the quality of the loan was if they could issue it, make a profit, and sell it to either Fannie or institutioanal investors like hedge funds, pension funds, foreign governments.
Fannie and Freddie did NOT cause the economic crises.
According to Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They lost market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded. http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=market_place_misleads_the_publ
Not to mention the fact that F/F were fine SINCE THE THIRTIES. That's 70 years.
HINT: Its AIG. CDS weren't even considered insurance in New York where most of this stuff was traded.
F/F got screwed trying to make the same profits private biz was making because they believed the AAA ratings from Moody's .
{"commentId":8016115,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"hmm"}
{"commentId":8016253,"authorDomain":"hmm"}
The stock market, one measure of the economy went up from 2001 to 2007,
LOL and you say you've been in finance for 30 years huh?
{"commentId":8016253,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"hmm"}
{"commentId":8017279,"authorDomain":"lampell"}
Fannie and Freddie did NOT cause the economic crises
Linking someone who has less qualifications than the poster doesnt prove anything, I might as well link myself. Watching the prolifereation of products, which I helped to develop together with ARM loans led me to the conclusion in June of 07 that the housing market was going to collapse, since I couldnt short houses I bought ultra short financials and made my money that way. So if someone wants to say that Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac has no part in it that is fine. My analysis of the situation therefore was incorrect and I made my money for the wrong reasons. I will call my firm and tell them to take the money back:)
Seriously I have given lectures all of the world on subjects such as derivatives, commodity options, financial futures and even helped the NY Times on an article concerning credit default swaps. Without zillions of loans being issued my friends at AIG wouldnt have had anything to insure. The prime pump was Fannie and Freddie, what no one realized this time is that all of the other products at the same time would lead to a disaster. Yes you cannot look at one thing, put them all together, different story. The link is incorrect, he is not looking at the big picture. As far as economists are concerned I have hired many in my day along with analysts ( notice the first four letters of that job description) who will basically write anything as long as you pay them enough. If aint called the dismal science for nothing. In the stock market you pay an economist inversely to his length of time of his forecast, if he can predict what will happen tomorrow he gets paid more than the guy who predicts 10 years down the road. Almost no mainstream economist predicted the meltdown
And yes the stock market went up from 2001 to to 2007 and I dont know what chart you are looking at, it peaked at 14,000 in Oct of 2007, notice I didnt say 2008, maybe you didnt read what I posted. Look again. There is no debate on that one, sorry
{"commentId":8017279,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"lampell"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":8019887,"authorDomain":"lampell"}
Chuck
did you actually read my post before you answered it with your link? Did I not mention securitization in that sentence?
So the prime pump were these two institutions. Next we add some further ingredients, securitiztion of mortgages, packaging them into what looked like safe loans.
Did I not mention that Fannie Mae had indigestion? Is that not a way of saying they were losing market share cause they couldnt keep up?
{"commentId":8019887,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"lampell"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":8006300,"authorDomain":"kissmyarsenal"}
MOUNTAIN OF DEBT: Rising debt may be next crisis
Ya think?
Now we'll have a debt czar. Obama the Conquerer just ain't right.
{"commentId":8006300,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"kissmyarsenal"}
- 4 votes
#5 - Fri Jul 3, 2009 1:56 PM EDT{"commentId":8009007,"authorDomain":"leaseall"}
kissmyarsenal:
Saying "he just ain't right" is being polite. He is at least a hypocritical, self centered, egotistical joke as POTUS. He sinks deeper and deeper into his own self created quagmire on a daily basis and those who blindly support him can't (or should I say won't) accept his shortcomings, which there are many of.
{"commentId":8009007,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"leaseall"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":8024799,"authorDomain":"steveindahouse1"}
Couldn't agree with you more. Well said, maestro. Soon the debt will become Mt. Everest with Obama at the helm!
{"commentId":8024799,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"steveindahouse1"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":8013024,"authorDomain":"beckylonneman"}
kissmy, you are so right. If us everyday folks know how to manage money and our politicanss don't then it is time to vote them out and replace them with everyday folks instead of the idots that thinking spending is ok.
{"commentId":8013024,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"beckylonneman"}
- 2 votes
#6 - Fri Jul 3, 2009 7:49 PM EDT{"commentId":8019812,"authorDomain":"mwestenfelder"}
Double digit inflation will take care of that.
{"commentId":8019812,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"mwestenfelder"}
- 2 votes
#7 - Sat Jul 4, 2009 4:56 AM EDT{"commentId":8024769,"authorDomain":"steveindahouse1"}
Obama will save us from this mountain of debt. He has a plan to redistribute it.
{"commentId":8024769,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"steveindahouse1"}
- 3 votes
#8 - Sat Jul 4, 2009 2:06 PM EDT{"commentId":8025748,"authorDomain":"pissedoffbob"}
First off, I hate the fact that this is a right wing/left wing blame game. In all honesty, this debt to our country is not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. Foreigners will always buy US treasury bonds, as said in the article, though they may be decreasing America is still the backbone of the world economy. As long as we continue to have creditors we can continue to work through this recession. As said in the article, as compared to our GDP our debt is not that bad.
As far as excessive spending with the stimulus packages, its a fairly risk move but it had to be done. The current war we are is obviously not an economy booster as wars were in the past. However, people with more military intelligence and a desire to keep our country safe think these wars are necessary. So stop with the conspiracy theories about presidents and leaders that have become the face to blame for our economic situation. They made decisions for what they thought were the benefit of our economy and our country.
Please keep this discussion limited to the economy and stop the immature slandering of the decision makers.
{"commentId":8025748,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"pissedoffbob"}
- 2 votes
#9 - Sat Jul 4, 2009 3:17 PM EDT{"commentId":8027283,"authorDomain":"lampell"}
They made decisions for what they thought were the benefit of our economy and our country.
Legislators are not gods, they like to stay in power, it has become debatable if they are looking out for us and not them. As far as immature slandering, expressing ones opinion is not slandering anyone. The stimulus was passed in order to show the public that something was being done, without much thought put into it. 787 billion was allocated, 300 of it was for tax cuts to put 13 dollars into your paycheck. The thought was that it would be spent and stimulate consumer spending. Fact is it is being saved which is why the savings rate is much higher in the last few months. If you think you are going to be laid off, or are working less hours that is, for you, the right thing to do. Of the other 487 billion, only 59 billion has been spent, 13 of which went go Social Security so that seniors could spend more money than they have. Looking at the stimulus from a different perspective we can safely say it has done nothing to stabilize the economy since its already stabilized and most of the stimulus hasnt even been used. The Fed did the heavy lifting there, with bailouts, flooding the markets with cheap money, getting into the commerial paper market, car loans, RVs buying mortgage paper. As far as foreigner always wanting to buy our T Bonds, look at the fine print of who is buying our Bonds, the Fed in a massive Ponzi scheme is printing money in order to make it look like the auctions are doing well. As far as deficits are concerned keep in mind that the Fed has already guaranteed almost as much as the national debt, 9 trillion and counting. It remains to be seen if the Fed can exracate itself from all these markets to fine tune the recovery. There is no way that the employees at the Fed could have become experts in every area where they are now in. If for some reason, in the future the foreigners , especially the oil producers decide not to be paid in dollars for oil you will see an entirely new ballgame when it comes to the dollar. Kissinger back in the old days, spent a lot of time trying to keep OPEC to continue linking the dollar with oil.
{"commentId":8027283,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"lampell"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":8027858,"authorDomain":"pissedoffbob"}
I do agree with most of what you are saying. However, most of the stimulus went businesses and not to individuals. True, the economy is on the decline as the national savings rate goes up, but this is not with the stimulus dollars. And as long as we are such a large oil consuming country, OPEC will continue linking the dollar with oil.
{"commentId":8027858,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"pissedoffbob"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":8028509,"authorDomain":"lampell"}
However, most of the stimulus went businesses and not to individuals.
That may have been the intent, but to date the tax cuts went to individuals, the infrastructure spending hasnt really kicked in yet. It was designed to kick in just about before the mid term elections in 2010. Keep in mind that the stimulus was for a ten year period the bulk in the second year.
{"commentId":8028509,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"lampell"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":8035864,"authorDomain":"jd123abc"}
So, who reaps all that free money from the interests...? Big banks?
I would be pissed to have a "big brother" forcing me into debts by taking multiple high-interest rates credits without my consent...
{"commentId":8035864,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"jd123abc"}
#10 - Sun Jul 5, 2009 11:21 AM EDT{"commentId":8048849,"authorDomain":"jeffblock2012for100days"}
An approaching default on part or all of the national debt will define the next Revolution. At a bare minimum default would have to result in a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Our political leaders of the 50 years past have racked up over $10 trillion in debt without a clear picture of how it would be paid back - they borrowed without OUR permission (oh yeah, I forgot, we can vote them out next election...)
Here's another way a Revolution might look: check out JeffBlock2012.com
{"commentId":8048849,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"jeffblock2012for100days"}
#11 - Mon Jul 6, 2009 7:52 AM EDT{"commentId":8049931,"authorDomain":"thoughtcrime"}
Thank you for mentioning that the nation was debt free ONCE. Andrew Jackson was able to do this. You failed to mention how ... Jackson was vehemently against central banks in America. The answer today, as it was two hundred years ago, is to abolish the central banking system in this county, and to do away with most excesses of the fractional reserve banking system. His quotes still ring strikingly true and clear today, considering the financial meltdown that has been systematically created by our central banking apparatus, the "Federal" "Reserve". Great A.J. quotes:
{"commentId":8049931,"threadId":"618684","contentId":"2994632","authorDomain":"thoughtcrime"}
#12 - Mon Jul 6, 2009 9:36 AM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"618684","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
